A view of US: Critical Ethnographic perspectives on American Military presence in East Asia by John Hines-part 1

Another summer at UTNIF has sadly come to a close. Overall, I’m confident the workshop was an outstanding experience for all. The students turned out a stunning list of arguments. Our list of critiques includes arguments grounded in theories of a diverse group of thinkers such as Schmitt, Bataille, Shapiro, Agamben, and Foucalt. We completed a variety of innovative disadvantages such as Prompt Global Strike, the Senkaku Islands disadvantage and Global Anti-base Movements. The Affirmatives include cases to end the Counter Insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, close Futenma Air Station in Okinawa, permanently end the policy of secret detention and torture, and even a “whole res” case to withdraw all US military and police presence from every topic country. Wow! Most of us will now return home and begin preparation for the first day of school, and the first tournaments of the year. As most of my lab students have heard during the course of the summer, I have slightly different plans.

Thanks to a generous research fellowship that Fund for Teachers and The Marcus Foster Education Fund awarded me, I am now preparing to travel to East Asia to conduct primary research on this year’s high school debate topic. Starting August 3, I will travel to Korea to meet and interview local activists who advocate Korean reunification and oppose the construction and expansion of US military bases. This encounter will be followed up by similar research projects in Taipei and Beijing before concluding my trip with a visit to activists in Henoko Bay, Okinawa (anyone who debated a Futenma AFF this summer should be well aware of where I’m talking about). Two primary questions will animate my research: What are local perceptions of American military and economic involvement in East Asia? What local stories and perspectives have been subverted in the overarching narrative of US military and economic dominance in Asia? One of my primary goals with this project is to connect the stories and lives of people who actually live near US bases and experience the day-to-day impact of US military presence to our traditional approach towards evidence. Such an approach would allow us to compare the value of emphasizing secondary over primary topic research.

Why did I apply for the fellowship?

As an educator I’ve never encountered a more empowering pedagogical tool than competitive debate. Debate doesn’t simply expect some form of critical thinking to occur but requires of its practitioners an actively engaged critical mind. With this fellowship my hope is to chart a unique approach to topic research and argument construction. By collecting pictures, stories, video and interviews rather than simply relying upon extant publications available in our local libraries or the internet, I hope to inspire debaters to look beyond traditional explanations and analyses which rely upon a cold and calculating utilitarian logic. I wish to humanize our research and debate practice by giving our subjects a face and a voice.

Academic debate traditionally views itself as a rhetorical game, where students learn the intricacies of public policy and persuasion. Until recently, debaters and coaches never viewed the act of debating as anything other than purely rhetorical. The explosion of performance (hip-hop, storytelling, plays, personal narratives, performance art, etc.) in debate rounds over the past decade signals a shifting understanding of the activity. Proponents of the performance turn in academic debate argue that debate has always been implicitly focused upon performance despite the lack of an explicit acknowledgement of these methodological foundations. For example, high school students spend thousands of dollars each summer attending college workshops where they are drilled in appropriate performance techniques. The existence of speaking drills, speaker points and the cross-examination period itself attest to the ultimately performative nature of the activity (the ballot asks an inherently performative question of the judge with the phrase “the better debating was done by”).

Essentially, the “Performance Turn” in debate calls into question traditional notions of objectivity in research. It is therefore my intention to offer research conducted utilizing the methodology of critical ethnography to debaters interested in pursuing performance argumentation techniques.

What is critical ethnography?

According to D. Soyini Madison:

“Critical ethnography begins with an ethical responsibility to address processes of unfairness or injustice within a particular lived domain. By ‘ethical responsibility,’ I mean a compelling sense of duty and commitment based on moral principles of human freedom and well-being, and hence a compassion for the suffering of living beings. The conditions of existence within a particular context are not as they could be for specific subjects; as a result, the researcher feels a moral obligation to make a contribution toward changing those conditions toward greater freedom and equity. The critical ethnographer also takes us beneath surface appearances, disrupts the status quo, and unsettles both neutrality and taken-for-granted assumptions by bringing to light underlying and obscure operations of power and control. Therefore, the critical ethnographer moves from ‘what is’ to ‘what could be’ (Carspecken, 1996; Denzin, 2001; Noblit, Flores & Murillo, 2004; Thomas, 1993). Because the critical ethnographer is committed to the art and craft of fieldwork, empirical methodologies become the foundation for inquiry, and it is here “on the ground” of Others that the researcher encounters social conditions that become the point of departure for research (Thomas, 1993).“

Madison continues with the suggestion that critical ethnographers be guided by the following methodological questions:

“1. How do we reflect upon and evaluate our own purpose, intentions, and frames of analysis as researchers?

2. How do we predict consequences or evaluate our own potential to do harm?

3. How do we create and maintain a dialogue of collaboration in our research projects between ourselves and Others?

4. How is the specificity of the local story relevant to the broader meanings and operations of the human condition?

5. How—in what location and through what intervention—will our work make the greatest contribution to equity, freedom, and justice?”

-Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics, and Performance (2005)

Who am I?

One of the elements of critical ethnography I find most compelling is its directive that the researcher cannot forget who they are and what experiences they bring to the table. It is important that I honor my personal history and knowledge I have accumulated which contribute to my research endeavor. I’ve been involved in debate as a competitor and coach since I began debating in middle school in 1988. As a college debater I amassed a respectable record of appearances in late outrounds at numerous national tournaments in addition to three invitations to the National Debate Tournament. In my senior year I made the difficult decision to end my career in the fall in order to focus on community activism in the wake of September 11^th. As a graduate student in Communication Studies at the University of North Texas (M.A. 2005), I became interested in how Rhetorical Studies and Performance Theory scholars addressed questions of voice and power within their research. I explored a research method termed [Performance Ethnography]. Utilizing this research method I traveled to Cuba, Jamaica and Mexico in order to conduct critical ethnographic research on the maintenance of traditional religious beliefs within modern cultures of performance. This current fellowship is an opportunity for me to continue my exploration of ethnography as research method and critical analysis tool.

In conclusion I’d like to thank the UTNIF for graciously allowing me to utilize their blog in order to post my reflections and research, The College Preparatory School for assistance in acquiring this grant, and Bruce Gagnon of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space for arranging my introduction to the activist community in Korea and Japan. This post is the first in a series of entries charting my journey. Check back here regularly over the next thee weeks as I post journal entries offering observations on the research process, pictures of my trip and most importantly videos of my interviews. Ultimately, the goal of this blog is to provide debaters with a highly unique form of research on a very exciting and important debate topic.

Thanks for reading, and let me know if you have specific questions you would like me to address in my research and interviews!